... for an arc
flash study that Mr. Reyes was qualified to do in house and at
no cost to taxpayers.

$200,000

... the estimated
engineering cost of the express feeder which could also be done
in house at no cost to taxpayers.

$591,898

... wasted when
insurance requirements were circumvented by the city manager and
utility director.

$123,098

... wasted when
plant manager Dave Mulvay’s first attempt at writing a scope
of work contained a defect that cost taxpayers an extra $123,098
for tainting the bidding process and giving unfair advantage to
one bidder over another. - April 2009

$64,000

... wasted when
the Matrix organizational study to save taxpayers money was scrapped
in favor of higher cost outsourcing by city manager Stanton.

$450,000

... wasted engineering
design cost of water piping and tanks (original county water deal)
that will never be built.

$59,975

... wasted when
additional costs were incurred for not following insurance procedure
on transformer repair.

$82,620

... wasted when
the commission unanimously voted to order transformers when we
had equivalent replacements already in stock since the upgrade.
- 15 Sep. 2009

What happened to the ARC FLASH study?

In April of 2009, an ARC
FLASH STUDY was commissioned by the utility director who is now being given
$72,000 for her last three months on the job.

An ARC FLASH study is required by federal regulators for safety reasons and
LWU was due to complete this study by January 2009 but granted an extension
to comply. An ARC FLASH study specs out the clothing, tools and headgear to
be worn at specific locations where high voltage danger could cause harm to
electric utility employees. Such harm did occur when an employee got severely
burned while working near a high voltage area in 2009.

As the articles and WASTE CLOCK (left) show, the data was already gathered
and available for analysis by our Protection Engineer in March 2009, Andres
Reyes. His seventeen years of expertise as a PROTECTION ENGINEER more than fully
qualified him for the analysis and assessment of the data. However the utility
director lied to the Commission claiming that no one on staff was qualified
to do the analysis and assessment work. And in concert with city manager Stanton,
the utility director then managed to secure $50,000 to outsource a study that
not only could have been done in house at no cost to taxpayers… but even
outsourced …shouldn’t cost more than $13,000. (Note the similarity
to Joe Kroll’s performance when he would bid jobs three times over market
price (Shuffle Board Court roof for example) making it a gravy train for contractors
who would certainly be "grateful.")

But as it turns out, the ARC FLASH study wasn’t completed for two years
(submitted February 2011) as employees were routinely exposed to extreme risk
and the IBEW union never uttered a word or warning. Further, the study is worthless
because it’s based on assumptions, guesswork, and modeling based on assumptions
when it should have been based on calculations from real data as
the utility director claimed it would be. Nothing in the study explains power
flow through the system, no data on impedances, relay settings, fuse sizes…
it's all guess work:

"Given the lack of specific data in some instances,…" (page 5 of the analysis
for ARC FLASH FINAL T&D)

"Since detailed power flow and relay data for the transmission system was not
provided, all transmission relays are assumed" (page 5 of the analysis for T&D
the document)

"Since some settings were unavailable, certain engineering assumptions…" (page
7 of the analysis for ARC FLASH FINAL T&D)

"UCS assumed the device protection scheme includes a functional instantaneous
fault clearing device and no reclosing." (page 5 of the LW GEN AF Final report)

"line impedance data were not available for all facilities which resulted in
modeling assumptions for various facilities and components of the Plant’s system."
(page 7 LW GEN AF Final report)

You can't insure the protection of employees with "assumptions" you need data.
So today, as employees are scheduled to change out a 138 kV breaker, they are
put at extreme risk. A new breaker requires new relay settings that no one on
staff is qualified to make as they are part of a coordination study that is
required to meet federal standards. So again safety is sacrificed and employees
put at risk while union reps at the utility remain silent. The question is:
has LWU complied with requirements to coordinate relay settings with FPL who
has to approve the settings according to regulations? This seems unlikely as
no one on staff is qualified to provide those relay settings. This could potentially
end up with a NERC violation if not handled properly.

And how does this fair up to federal regulations? See bottom of article.

Summary

So once again, LW taxpayers got ripped off by wasting over forty thousand for
a worthless study that wouldn’t have cost a single cent if the utility
director had truthfully informed the commission.

Depending on the study (submitted by the same engineer that forgot about 12
million in expenses for the 26 kV upgrade) is like someone saying, “I’m
guessing the footings underneath your home should have about 5 pounds per cubic
foot of steel reinforcement …so that should be safe enough to proceed
with the construction of two more stories on top of what you have... just sign
here and we’ll get started.”

And adding insult to injury… the utility director’s grip of fear
on the city is so well entrenched in the naive psyche of the new Commission,
that like lambs led to the slaughter, they barely made a peep as a temporary
city manager offered and agreed to pay an outrageous $72,000 for three more
months of having taxpayers ripped off.

More info…

FAC-008-1 R1 - OVERVIEW

This violation was discovered during an on-site audit on September 2, 2009
and September 3,
2009 (Audit). FRCC determined that LWU, as a Transmission Owner and Generator
Owner, did
not provide documents sufficient to demonstrate that its Facility Ratings Methodology
included
the scope of relay protective devices in its methodology from June 18, 2007
to November 18,
2008.

FAC-009-1 R1- OVERVIEW

This violation was discovered during the Audit. FRCC determined that LWU, as
a
Transmission Owner, did not provide documents sufficient to demonstrate that
the Facility
Ratings for its solely and jointly owned facilities are consistent with the
Facility Ratings
Methodology.

FAC-008-1
Facility Ratings Methodology
To ensure that Facility Ratings used in the reliable planning and operation
of the Bulk Electric System (BES) are determined based on an established methodology
or methodologies.

FAC-008-3 Facility
Ratings
To ensure that Facility Ratings used in the reliable planning and operation
of the Bulk Electric System (BES) are determined based on technically sound
principles. A Facility Rating is essential for the determination of System Operating
Limits.

FAC-009-1
Establish and Communicate Facility Ratings
To ensure that Facility Ratings used in the reliable planning and operation
of the Bulk Electric System (BES) are determined based on an established methodology
or methodologies.